Post on 22-Sep-2020
Gabriela Celani, David M. Sperling and Juarez M.S. Franco (Eds.): The Next City: 16th International
Conference CAAD Futures 2015, pp. 25-36, 2015. © Biblioteca Central Cesar Lattes 2015.
A place at the table for research through design
Jules Moloney1
1Deakin University
jules.moloney@gmail.com
Abstract.This paper addresses an issue that has been omnipresent in the history
of CAAD research: the tension between scientific method and the design
discipline in which it operates. Outside the CAAD community, research
through design is been undertaken by a new generation. Through a discussion
of research methodologies, a survey of CAAD activity and the examination of
design projects, it is proposed that this provides a valuable opportunity to
redress the balance between scientific and designerly modes of research and in
so doing engage with a new generation of design computing researchers.
keywords:Research Through Design, Methods, CAAD History.
1 Introduction
2015 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of CAAD Futures. It is also
the twentieth anniversary of CAADRIA, while ACADIA, ECAADE and SIGRADI
were founded respectively 34, 32 and 18 years ago. These are substantial periods of
activity and the organizations have been highly successful at advancing research and
teaching of computer aided architectural design around the globe. My first
engagement with these communities was attending the 1995 CAAD Futures
conference in Singapore, on route to my first academic job after a decade in
architectural practice. In many ways the 1995 conference was seminal: with the title
of The Global Design Studio, the conference showcased virtual design studiosenabled
by thenewly available ‘internet’; and a generation of researchers from the pioneering
70’s and 80’s reflected on progress; including Tom Maver’s infamous CAAD’s Seven
Deadly Sins [1]. Twenty years on, another generational shift has occurred, alongside
the ubiquitous use in practice of what were considered advanced computing
techniques such as generative algorithms, real time visualization and computer aided
manufacture. Given the majority of design is now undertaken through the computer, it
is timely to consider the role and relevance of specialist CAAD research
organizations. The position explored here is that the contemporary users of CAAD –
young designers, practioners and consultants – have much to offer. One potential way
to engage with this new generation is to be more accommodating in the recognition of
designing as a significant research activity. This position recognizes that much of the
26 A place at the table for research through design
cutting edge computational activity now occurs through expert usersin the latter
stages of their education or as recent graduates in practice.
This presentation is organized in three sections. In the first I note the dual heritage
of CAAD- science and architecture - and locate the tension this has caused in relation
to research method. From thisI explore the establishment of research through design
outside the CAAD community, through the contributions by Downton andBlythe. The
framework has settled around a tripartite understanding of research: about (the
methods, media and techniques that are used to carry out design); for (research that
will enable design such asmaterial, construction and performance simulation); and
through design (where a project embeds significant understanding or insight that can
in turn inform subsequent design research). A second section presents analysis of a
survey of publications from the CAAD community since 1994, which locates the
spread between research about, for andthrough design. This enables a comparison of
activity within CAADRIA, ACADIA, eCAADe and CAAD Futures conferences. The
final section examinesexamples of research through design, identifying a range of
approaches. The aim of the paperis to stimulate discussion on how to engage the
current generation of designers, who through innovative adaptation of digital
technology are, arguably, the new experts.
.
2 Design Research Methods Inside and Outside CAAD
In a paper entitled the Dual Heritage of CAAD Thomas Kvan locates the founding of
CAAD in science and the creative arts, and the tension between computational logic
and the creative practices of designing.
‘On the one hand, we find ourselves in the culture of design in which discovery is
observed as an ineffable act of creation, tested only in its manifestation. On the other
hand, the artifacts of our research must be expressible in the definitive and
unambiguous clarity of data and procedures, to be evaluated in the integrity of their
reasoning.[2]’
Research methods are well established in relation to the scientificlegacy and provide
one robust and well established mechanism by which to evaluate quality. However,
where designing as the method to undertake research is foregrounded, there is not the
same level of agreement. In a series of CAADRIA presentations between 2009 and
2011 Thomas Fischer discussed the non- acceptance of research through design as a
methodology within the CAAD community. Fischer highlighted the tension between
the scientific bias of CAAD research and the typically subjective and circular
methods used by designers. He locates alternate approaches to causality as the key
issue, proposing that there are positives and negatives from an emphasis on linear
(scientific) causality and circular (designerly) causality. His analysis is summarizedby
Jules Moloney 27
way of a useful diagram (Figure 1) that articulates the problem for CAAD
researchers. While circularity may lead to novel, exciting and adaptable outcomes, the
approach is unpredictable, instable and unreliable. Hence as Fischer states.‘Much of
CAAD, and neo-positivist scientific research in support of it, are preoccupied with the
deployment of techniques developed to detect and enforce linear causation’[3].This is
reinforced by guidelines for paper reviewers that often include the requirement that
the methods should be stated such that they can be reproducible. This requirement,
while appropriate for linear scientific based methods, is typically not well articulated
by those adopting circular design methods. Moreover, the emphasison reproducibility
or repeatability, while vital for science, is at odds with a design methodology that
typically is either deliberately seeking a novel outcome, or the particular context will
generate the novel redeployment of a design precedent.
Fig. 1.The polar distinction between linear and circular causality(Fischer, 2010)
Fischer cites the work of Nigel Cross, who is a key figure in the establishment of
research through design outside the CAAD community.Cross in his seminal
Designerly Ways of Knowing[4] set in 1984 a challenge for the design disciplines
todevelop an intellectual culture that can demonstrate standards of rigor that match
those of the sciences. This challenge has been gradually taken up within the
architectural design disciplines and while not fully mature, there is a growing body of
thinking and exemplar research. At the vanguard are two institutions – the Bartlett
School of Architecture and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.Both have
well established Doctoral programmes undertaken ‘by project’, where the outcomes
are typically a series of designs interwoven with reflective commentary,which situates
the design in relation to precedent and projects the trajectory for further design. While
there are a growing number of publications articulating aspects of this agenda, Peter
Downton’s Design Research provides (to my mind)a rigorous articulation of research
through design, as distinct from research about or for design.Research about design
focuses on the methods, media and techniques that are used to carry out design. This
form of research will be very familiar to the CAAD community as arguably, research
about the impact of the computer on architecture is the very genesis for the
28 A place at the table for research through design
identification of CAAD as a distinct field. Our proceedings and journals are thick
with analysis of the impact of techniques enabled by computation and the methods
(survey, interview,graphic analysis etc.) are well established. Alongside this,
according to Downton’s study, research fordesign encompasses a distinct body of
research that is undertaken to enable design. This includes site analysis, material and
technology studies, and the building performance modelling, simulation and data
analysis typically carried out in Architectural Science. Again, this mode of research is
central to CAAD and the methods (empirical testing, calibration, etc.) are well
understood and articulated by researchers. The third category of design research is
underpinned by the logic of Downton’s opening sentence to his book.
‘Design is a way of inquiring, a way of producing knowing and knowledge; this
means it is a way of researching.[5]’
Research through design typically examines a specific context to conceive and
develop an architectural outcome that may be eventually realized, or it may be a
‘paper’ project produced for an ideas competition and /or as part a thesis. Presuming
CAAD researchers have undertaken an architectural education and or worked in
practice, designing will be familiar, albeit I suspect few would consider this a research
activity in itself. As articulated by Fischer, research through design, without some
form of scientific validation, would appear to be problematic for much of the CAAD
community. According to Downton’s RMIT colleague Richard Blythe, the key to
conceivingdesigning as research is the critical reflection that accompanies and
informs the design. He identifies three forms of reflection at play: reflection on
previously completed designs; the intuitive reflection that accompanies the active
design stage; and reflection that projects forward from the current project to suggest
new designs. These three frames are identifiedseparately as a way to understand the
nuances of designing, but according to Blythe they are present simultaneouslywhen
designing,to produce a sophisticated ‘synthesised synthetic space[6]’ of research
inquiry. Arguably, to meet the standard requirement for research that results are
transmitted to others, the design researcher would need to articulate the reflective
process as a commentary on the design. It is at this point that some difference can be
perceived between the RMIT approach and that of the Bartlett, particularly in relation
to the role of writing in research. For Jonathan Hill, Director of the Bartlett PhD
programme, design research‘has two inter-related elements of equal importance—a
project and a text—that share a research theme and a
productive relationship.[7]’Thus the contribution to knowledge and its transmission
to other researchers is through a more or less equal weighting of text and design
artefact (drawing, computer model, video etc.). This contrasts with the stance by
Downton that design knowledge ‘has the distinct character of being embodied in the
process of designing itself’ and that the ‘knowledge produced in design is stored,
transmitted and learnt through works’[8].The programmes at the Bartlett and RMIT
Jules Moloney 29
locate two points between which there is much middle ground. For example, our one
yearMasters thesis programme at VUW operates on guidelines of 75% weighting to
the design component and 25% to the accompanying text (typically 12,000 words).
We have found this strikes a balance between emphasizing the primary mode of
research is communicated with design representations, but that the expectation is that
critical reflection will be substantive: locating the project in relation to the particular
design scope; and communicating the insight / knowledge achieved in the thesis.
In summary, outside the CAAD community there is a substantive intellectual
culture that articulates methodologies, critique and precedent for research through
design. This culture is still maturing and there is a valuable plurality of modes of
operation within different parts of the worlds: the RIBA have identified guidelines for
conceiving research in professional practice; there is a shift from individual design
thesis to a collaborative research studio model in many US schools; while some
Scandinavian researchershave explicit expectations for designing as research. There is
substantial momentum–for example in the three schools of architecture in New
Zealand where the final year of study is a full thesis, over 500 Design Research
Mastersthesis have been completed in the last four years. This breadth and depth of
activity provides an opportunity and a challenge for the CAAD community.
Provocatively titled There is No such Thing as Digital Design, Neil Leach, in effect,
predicts the demise of organizations such as ACADIA [9]. From this perspective,
wheremost design is computational and much of the technical advances are now
occurring within practice and the design studio, what role will traditional CAAD
organizations play? My view is that the acceptance of research through design
provides a valuable opportunity to redress the balance identified by Fischer, and
refresh the established CAAD organisations. The challenge is to find ways in
whichthe positives of circular (designerly) causalityand linear (scientific) causality
can mutually inform a new generation of CAAD research.
3 Trends within CAAD research 1984-2014
As a way forward, this next section tests Fischer’s observations that research through
designhas been marginalized by the dominance of scientific research paradigms and
methods. This is undertaken by a targeted survey of publications since 1994 taking in
CAAD Futures, ACADIA, eCAADe, CAADRIA and SIGraDi. The aspiration to
obtain a useful snapshot of activity across such a timeline and involving five different
organizations,has proved challenging. While Cumincad provides an extremely useful
resource of all the relevant publications, there is no rigorous cataloguing system in
place. The aim at the start of the survey was to use Downton’s classification of
research about,for and through design to identify trends over time and any points of
difference between each of the organizations. This would be reliant on the consistent
use of keywords across thousands of papers, and it soon became apparent this was not
30 A place at the table for research through design
the case. In order to progress a trial and error approach was utilized, using keywords
that appeared in publications that met Downton’s definitions. Through a process of
trial and error a range of keywords were identified that enabled a sample of
approximately 10%. The five sets of keywords used in the survey were prototype,
project, practice, architectural design,design method, and design process. These
keywords resulted in identifying642 publications from a total of 6741 within the
period 1994 – 2014. Each of these publications were categorized as primarily using a
methodology about, for or through design. In most cases this could be ascertained
through the abstract and where it was not obvious the full paper was reviewed. In
some cases multiple modes of research were present and for these as long as there was
a strong applied design component they were indexed as through design.A summary
of the results of the survey are illustrated in figure 2.
Fig. 2.Indicative trends from 1994 – 2014 identified by keywords (prototype; project; practice;
architectural design; design method; design process) indexed as about, for or through design.
Jules Moloney 31
It must be emphasized that the survey was intended to identify research through
design as defined by Downton and to locate indicative trends over time and between
CAAD organization. In this it serves its purpose, but it should not be considered
authorative. The results confirm expectation in terms of a dominance of research
about design representing approximately 67%. Research for design was the focus of
approximately 9%, likely reflecting the choice of keywords that avoided simulation,
materials and others identifiable with such enabling research. Conversely, due to the
targeting of key words,approximately 24% of the sample included a significant
research through design component. While this cannot be considered definitive, some
trends over time and differentiation between between organizations are identifiable.
Below is a discussion of these trends with an interpretation in relation to the regional
characteristics and tendencies, as observed by the author.
CAAD Futures has had minimal presence of papers that have a focus on research
through design. It could be surmised that occurring bi-annually and typically
attracting established researchers, that the scrutiny is higher and either the conference
is not attractive to designers, or they do not get accepted. ACADIA has intermittent
presence with a noticeable bulge in 2014. My observation is that ACADIA
conferences have typically been more rigorous in selecting papers that directly
address the yearly theme and preoccupation of the hosting institution(s), which might
explain the intermittence. The hosts of the 2014 ACADIA conference –the University
of Southern California - selected renowned designerZahaHadid as the main keynote
and marketed the venue Los Angeles as ‘a global center of progressive design in
architecture’ [10]. These factors are likely to explain the comparative number of
research through design papers identified in that year. eCAADe has had the most
consistent presence over the time surveyed, with a growing number of papers that
foreground design as the vehicle for inquiry. My experience of attending multiple
eCAADe conferences is that there generally is a greater range of topics and mix of
academics and design professionals. It is also unique in that the review for acceptance
is based on an extended abstract, rather than a full paper review. In contrast
CAADRIA has until recently, not attracted designers or found research through
design papers acceptable. This perhaps can be explained by the focus of CAADRIA
on supporting young regional researchers and PhD students, who typically are
working in institutions that have a tradition of science and engineering. These include
Asian universities and a number of Australasian universities founded on design
science, as evidenced by the long established Australian and New Zealand
Architectural Science Association. SIGraDi has a similar trend to that of CAADRIA,
with a noticeable increase in ‘hits’ in the last several years based on the keyword
search. While I have not attended this conference, SIGraDi is differentiated from its
sister organizations by an emphasis on graphics, rather than architecture per se. This
perhaps, has resulted in less architectural design-led publications.
32 A place at the table for research through design
The intent of the survey was to evaluate Fischer’s observations that CAAD
researchers (as quoted earlier)‘are preoccupied with the deployment of techniques
developed to detect and enforce linear causation’.This certainly would appear to be
the case for CAADRIA, the conference in which Fischer presented his critique.In
other institutions, notably eCAADe and at times ACADIA it would appear circular
(designerly) research methods are to varying degrees present. HoweverCAAD
Futures, considered by most the premier conference in CAAD, almost entirely
consists of research that adopts scientific research methods.
The differentiation between regional organizations observed above is not
necessarily an issue, and indeed may well be celebrated by many. It must also be
noted that research through design is not universally accepted in mainstream
architectural research. The motivation for highlighting the dominance of scientific
paradigms in our organizations is that this would appear to be excluding much of the
computer aided architectural design of the current generation. Their introduction to
computing has typically occurred in a design focused environment, where the
customization of software through graphic programming interfaces and
experimentation with rapid prototyping techniques is the norm. While these young
designersmay be considered ‘mere users’, many are pushing the boundaries of design
computing in a way that is innovative and directly relevant to practice.
4 Design Research Examples
This final section discusses two research through design publications located in the
survey that illustrate a practice inspired project and a design thesis project. This is
followed by a further example by a young designer outside the CAAD community.
The objective is to briefly discuss some typical examples of research through design.
The first project will be known to many CAAD researchers – the
AegisHyposurface©.The documentation of this design-led research was presented at
the 2001 ACADIA conference. The project team was led by Mark Gaulthorpe who at
the time was the director of a small practice dECOi Architects. dECOi won a
competition that conceived a kinetic surface that could be used to visualize patterns,
graphics and text as a dynamic relief. While there are precedents in the
mechanicaltelevisions of the 1920’s, this was the first time that an architectural
surface would embed real time graphics. It has since stimulated a number of other
prototypes and led to significant research into interactive architecture. The design led
to a number of technical innovations in order to be realized, involving collaborative
research from mathematicians, and multiple engineering disciplines – structural,
rubber, adhesive, and pneumatic[11]. This is a seminal example of a design that has
led to advances in computation and stimulated much further research. In
conclusionGaulthorpe reflects on the wider implications for the research in terms of
interdisciplinary collaboration.
Jules Moloney 33
So, perhaps the most innovative aspect of the device… is simply the revolution in
creative process that it celebrates. A group of ‘local’ thinkers have come to
understand the value and kinship of interdisciplinary partnership..[12]’
Fig. 3. Design for AegisHyposurface©. (Gaulthorpe, 2001)
The second example is a Masters design thesis project under my
supervision,where the student was encouraged to publish the research. The project
was documented with my editorial assistance and submitted to CAADRIA where it
was rejected in the review process. Subsequently the same paper was submitted to
eCAADe where it was accepted and presented [13]. The context in which this project
was undertakenundertaken is the legacy of South Indian temple design. The carved
temple walls developed by the people of the Hindu culture existed as a tool to
document and dictate a way of living. Trying to reproduce the temple, in particular
the intricately carved surfaces, requires the architectural skin to either loose fidelity
through compromise in craft or require an enormous budget. The project proposed
that by translating traditional handcraft ideologies to the digital medium of augmented
reality, the traditional role of temple architecture could be realized in contemporary
architecture. This proposition was explored through designs and technology mockups.
From these designs the student reflected on the wider implications. He proposed the
design precedent opens up a complimentary field of research within a cultural context,
which can be considered as a form of cultural augmentation,to set a new agenda for
mixed reality in architecture. Further reflectionwas undertaken on the range of ways
in which AR had been conceived in the design: urban, building, wall and artefact.
While the scalar strategy has been developed in relation to the traditional role of the
temple, it was proposed that the design provides a basis for others to consider in terms
34 A place at the table for research through design
of the use of augmented reality as an active component of architecture. This was
abstracted in terms of a diagram where augmentation can be considered as a
continuum from the urban scale to that of an individual artefact.
Fig. 5. AR as a Scalar Continuum for Cultural Augmentation
The third example, taken from outside the CAAD community is a PhD by project,
undertaken by Roland Snooks at RMIT University, which engages‘with complex
systems, generative design strategies and algorithmic techniques ... a process of
embedding architectural design intention within generative algorithms[14].’
The designs embeds novel computational techniques that are captured by the
phrase Behavioural Formation, the title of the thesis. While this is not an original
concept, some of the tactics used by the candidate to intervene as a designer in the
algorithmic process are. In particular the combination of explicit modelling and
algorithmic procedures referred to as ‘strange feedback’ and ‘manifold swarms’.
These and other strategies enable the candidate to imbue his architectural designs with
a novel formal aesthetic.While the algorithms do not appear to be substantial, their
application with an architectural design context is. In particular the candidate has
contributed to discourse within a lineage of researchers who have explored generative
algorithmic tactics based on the metaphor of the garden:John Frazerand his packet of
seeds approach [15]; Richard Latham’s analogy of the designers as gardener, pruning
and shaping form [16]; while Roland Snook’s tactics include the mechanism of the
scaffold or trellis, around which generated form can coalesce. Snook’s research is
Jules Moloney 35
included in this discussion as an example of the sophisticated use of design computing
within the current generation. This generation are typically not aware of the CAAD
organizations, nor generally of the large body of design computing that, in effect, has
underpinned their design explorations. While this ignorance of precedent breaks one
of Tom Maver’s sins, the uninhibitedtuning of algorithms in pursuit of a design
agendas can, as evidenced by Snook’s projects,make a significant contribution to this
legacy.
Fig. 6.Volatile formation (Snooks, 2012)
5 Concluding Remarks
This paper addresses an issue that has been omnipresent in the history of CAAD
research: the tension between scientific method and the design discipline in which it
operates. In Kvan’selegant description of this dichotomy, he refers to the outcome of
design computing as artefacts ‘expressible in the definitive and unambiguous clarity
of data and procedures, to be evaluated in the integrity of their reasoning.’ The use of
the word artefact is interesting, in that it is the same term used by many design
researchers in the context of arguingthat knowledge is embedded in the artefacts
resulting from designing – drawings, models and ultimately buildings. The
requirement for integrity and reasoning is also present and, as identified by Blythe,
lies in the critical reflection that precedes, accompanies and follows the act of design.
The examples briefly reviewed above illustrate how this reflection can be of value to
36 A place at the table for research through design
the agenda of CAAD research, beyond the individual design project or thesis. From a
wider perspective, arguably, the establishment of CAAD was in response to issues
that came from designing, in particular the complexity of large scale building with a
high servicing component. This argument can be traced further back through the
example of Mark Burry’s innovative research in realizing the SagradaFamilia.
Without Gaudi’s100 year old design Burry’s 1993 paper‘The need to Step Beyond
Conventional Architectural Software’[17] is unlikely to have been published, and
with it a substantial body of research. The issues raised here are far more complex
than presented, but it is hoped that this stimulates some reflection by the CAAD
community on the potential of engaging with a new generation of designers who use
computers as a research medium.
References
1. Maver, T.W.:CAAD's Seven Deadly Sins, CAAD Futures, pp 21-11, (1995)
2. Kvan, T.: The ZDual heritage of CAAD Research, IJAC 4-2 (2004)
3. Fischer The interdependence of linear and circular causality in CAAD research: a unified
model , CAADRIA15 pp. 609-618 (2010)
4. Cross, N.: Designerly Ways of Knowing, Design Studies, 3-4, pp. 221-227 (1982)
5. Downton P.: Design Research, RMIT Press, Melbourne (2002)
6. Blythe R. and Van Schaik L.: What if Design practice matters, in Fraser M. Design
Research in Architecture: An Overview, Asgate, London (2013).
7. Hill J. : Introduction to PhD Programme at the Bartlett School of Architecture accessed
online (01.02.2015) https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=JMHIL80
8. Downton op. cit (2002)
9. Leach N. : There is No Such Thing as Digital Design in Gerber J. and Ibanez M. Paradigms
in Computing: Making, Machines, and Models for Design Agency Evollo, Los Angeles
(2015)
10. ACADIA 2014.: Design Agency Accessed online(01.02.2015)http://2014.acadia.org/
11. Gauthorpe M. Runco, M. and Chand, I.: Cognition and Creativity, Educational Psychology
Re-view, 7, 243-267 (1995)
12. Goulthorpe M.: Aegis Hyposurface” The Bordering of University and Practice ACADIA
(2001)
13. Duddumpudi K. Moloney J. Moleta T.: Whispering Walls eCAADe 2013, pp 507-516
(2013)
14. Snooks R.: Behavorial Formations: Multi-Agent Algorithmic Design Strategies PHD
Available online at https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/collection/ (2014).
15. Frazer J.: An Evolutionary Architecture, Architectural Association, London (1995)
16. Latham R, Todd S.: Evolutionary Art and Computers, Academic Press, London (1992)
17. Serrano, J.G., Coll, J., Melero, J.C. and Burry,M.: The Need to Step Beyond Conventional
Architectural Software, eCAADE (1993)